Tag Archives: entertainment

Why isn’t Hugh the Villain in All Creatures Great and Small?

Posted on by
All Creatures Great and Small

The latest episode of All Creatures Great and Small featured the return of Hugh. It afforded the writers an opportunity to present a clear villain to contrast with heroic James. They didn’t do so. Perhaps they had a couple of shots where Hugh smiled at the misfortune of James but that’s as far as it went.

Today I want to examine why Hugh is portrayed in this manner and what I think about that choice. It’s an interesting concept because most shows tend to break down the world into simple choices. Good guy versus bad guy. All Creatures Great and Small chose not to go that route.

Who is Hugh?

Hugh was the romantic interest and rival for Helen’s affection from the first season of All Creatures Great and Small. The two were engaged with their marriage marking the season finale. Helen, for various reasons including her affection for James, calls off the marriage at the last moment leaving Hugh at the altar.

The Reappearance of Hugh

Hugh is absent from season two up until now, although he is mentioned several times. This episode starts with James going to Hugh’s estate to ring a young bull. Hugh seems to smile at James’s misfortune with the bull and that leads the audience to believe Hugh is going to play the villain.

It turns out Hugh had the nose ring inserted because he planned to give it bull to Helen’s family as gift in replacement for a bull purchase that fell through as part of an episode in the previous season. He also puts Helen’s name on the farm deed as part of the renewal. Here is where we see Hugh not behaving in a villainous fashion. We learn he’s actually a decent fellow.

The central plot point of the episode is the cricket match between the landed gentry of the region and the local farmers. Hugh is the star bowler for one team while James is a late entry for the local side, although he lacks much experience with the game.

The Big Match

During the match, Hugh has a heartfelt talk with Helen where he admits his own trepidation about their relationship and shows no hard feelings.

In the big match Hugh faces James with the entire game at stake. James allows Hugh to win and rationalizes later to Helen that he felt he owed Hugh a win. Hugh then shakes James’s hand and offers him congratulations for a good game.

Why is Hugh Generous?

This question is the main focus of my blog. Why not make Hugh a monster? He has every right to be angry at James over Helen. Why not have him seek revenge? He might fail to renew the lease. He could purposely hit James with the cricket ball. He can make snide and nasty remarks at James’s expense. He doesn’t, but why?

Certainly, in a lot of other shows, that’s exactly the way they’d portray Hugh. A villain for the sake of comparing him to the hero. How are we to know James is a good guy if we don’t have a bad guy for the sake of comparison?

It’s my opinion the reason Hugh is a good egg is because that’s more realistic. It trusts the audience to understand that sometimes life happens. Just because James is a fine fellow doesn’t mean his romantic rival must be evil. It makes us view Hugh as a human being, not as a caricature of one. It’s nuanced and it’s interesting.

I like it

I think it’s probably pretty easy to guess my opinion on the portrayal of Hugh in All Creatures Great and Small. I think it’s great the writers are willing to trust my judgment. They don’t need to turn the world into tropes and boring cliches.

I don’t need Hugh to be bad to understand James is good. I don’t need James and Helen to be good all the time either. If anyone is a bit petty and angry in this episode, it’s James.

Well done, well done indeed.

Tom Liberman

Around the World in 80 days on an Island

Posted on by
Around the world in 80 Days

I’ve been complaining about Around the World in 80 Days since the start but I’m happy to report I mostly enjoyed this week’s episode. I’m not saying it’s the finest piece of television ever produced but it generally hit the mark despite some enormous plot holes.

Around the World in 80 Days never lacked from actors with talent but the story failed in so many ways we didn’t really get to see them action until this episode. Here we see Fix, Fogg, and Passepartout largely stuck on an island which allows us to learn about them. This is the sort of information that gives an audience reason to care about the characters.

That being said, the episode still has problems. Enough prelude, on with the review.

Stuck on an Island

The main plot structure allows us to learn more about the characters as they are stuck on an island after being forced off the luxury liner. I initially found myself extremely put off by the opening but I’m willing to forgive. The obvious question is; how did they get there?

Apparently, the gun-toting villain rounded up the characters, had them lower the lifeboat into the heavy seas, climb aboard, and launch. All without the crew or other passengers intervening. This is obviously ludicrous and certainly why it wasn’t shown. It makes no sense. But, let’s get past that and discuss character development once our heroes wash ashore on a deserted island.

We learn a great deal about Fogg and his lost love. I’m saddened this information did not find its way into the story until so late in the series. It’s the kind of thing that invests an audience into rooting for a character, to care what happens. Now, Fogg’s story is so pathetic, so weak, that I find him somewhat distasteful rather than heroic but it’s something at least. For the first time I feel for Fogg. I care.

We also get background information into about the friendship between Fogg and the others at the Reform Club after Passepartout correctly surmises who is trying to prevent them from accomplishing the goal. Again, this is really useful information and makes us like the characters. We understand the dynamics between the Fogg and his friends for the first time. This information should have come earlier but we finally get there.

Coming Clean

We also get apologies from all parties. Fogg admits his own failings. Passepartout comes clean about drugging Fogg and Fix admits revealing Fogg’s lost love was not proper. This is real character bonding. We start to actually like the heroes. Again, it took six episodes but we’re here at last.

My next opinion is nitpicky but it bothers me enough that I find myself compelled to mention it. The old British Stiff Upper Lip. Fogg as portrayed by David Tennant is over the top. He screams, yells, and waves his arms all the time. His histrionic banishing of Passepartout just didn’t work for me. I want a cold heat; a burning intensity being suppressed in order to act like a gentleman. I want Fogg to tell off Passepartout with cold, calculating words while heat burns underneath. It came across to me as improper and wrong.

Wrapping Up Around the World in 80 Days

The episode wraps up with all the characters displaying noble traits, working together, sacrificing, and coming through with a triumph. It’s all a little too convenient but it largely works. I’m actually on board with Fix, Fogg, and Passepartout for the first time in the series.

Conclusion

It’s probably too late. I never built up enough emotion for Around the World in 80 Days but at least we finally got some interesting character development and story structure. Having them stuck on the island without competing main plots helped us get here.

The best episode of the series so far. It’s a shame it took so long to get here.

Tom Liberman

The Gilded Age without a Central Support

Posted on by
The Gilded Age

Episode Two of the Gilded Age came and went with a number of the same problems as the premier and new ones to add to my distress. I assure you, dear readers, I want to love this show. I love the time-period portrayed and the many ideas it might explore but it is, so far, failing to rise to the occasion.

This episode carried over the wooden acting from the first episode and failed utterly to focus on a main story. If you read my reviews of Around the World in 80 Days, you’ll remember my complaint about competing main plots. It’s the same here.

Too much was left to happen off-screen as well. We need to see the important things, not be told about them. In any case, on with the review.

No Central Support

This episode had no structure. It was just a series of scenes swirling with a dozen different plot lines. It needed central support. One theme to rule them all, one theme to find them, one theme to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. The interesting part, at least for me, is that there is a central theme to work around. The charity event could easily be the structure upon which the entire episode is based.

The charity event is the subject of the denouement when George defends his wife’s feelings by shutting it down with an ostentatious display of wealth. My problem is that the episode didn’t use the event as a central support by which to drive a compelling plot.

What we Didn’t See

A number of important events happened off screen and we only learned about them via exposition from various characters. This is particularly appalling when you take into account the shortness of the episode at forty-five minutes. Show instead of tell but with time to spare, nope.

The biggest omissions involved the charitable gathering. The coincidence of the event having to switch venues is critical to the entire plot but it’s not explained in any way at all. It just happens. Why not have Bertha or George engineer the conflict? That’s interesting.

Then have a scene involving the picking of a new venue instead of a couple of lines of exposition where the organizers blame each other. We don’t know what is true and what is fabrication. It leaves the audience out of show entirely and it’s extremely frustrating from a viewing perspective.

If we see this, then the scene where Bertha throws her tray becomes significantly more impactful. The next thing we didn’t see is George consoling Bertha and making his grand plan to ruin the event. I want to see George’s love for Bertha, his rage at the snub. Not just the cold finale. I want to see the events that led up to it.

Of less concern is why didn’t we see Mrs. Bauer’s proclivity for gambling at some point? Even a simple background scene where she’s playing cards for money or tossing dice with the handsome young footman. And why didn’t the debt collector want silver candlesticks? They are valuable.

Also perhaps worth noting is Oscar’s eagerness to meet with Gladys. If we are to believe he’s a gold digger then we need to see more of it. It comes across as flat and unreal.

Wooden Acting

The acting continues to be largely, but certainly not completely, atrocious. The on-screen chemistry between Marian and Raikes is only rivalled by the intensity of Anakin and Padmé. You could actually put out of a fire with the sparks that fly between them.

It’s quite interesting to watch because certain actors are good for a few lines but then you can almost see them forcing dialect and becoming stilted and monotone. Oscar is believable and relatable and then utterly monotone and boring all within the same scene. It’s inexplicable.

Mystery for the Sake of Mystery

I also want to take a moment to discuss the plot line involving Mrs. Chamberlain. It’s clear she’s an important figure and her desire to becomes friends with Marian is interesting but totally unexplained. It seems the writers want to keep the viewers out of the loop so they can spring some surprise on us. It’s not a good way to write.

I’m not suggesting the writers need to tell us everything but we need important information. In a mystery you don’t give away the murderer but you also don’t hide the fact that the murderer has a twin sister until the final reveal. You must trust the audience. Give us something. Don’t treat us like idiots.

Conclusion

I’m going to continue watching The Gilded Age because there are a few excellent performances and the time period is fascinating. They need to get cracking though. I’m quickly getting bored.

Tom Liberman

A Dog too Far in All Creatures Great and Small

Posted on by
All Creatures Great and Small

Another week of excellent entertainment from All Creatures Great and Small was marred by a pair of imperfect plot lines. It’s saying a great deal about how much I like the show that the only things I can find to complain about are pretty nitpicky.

In this week’s wonderful episode there is a sick dog that plays only a minor, largely unimportant role, in the conflict and plot. And a missing limp. That’s it, those are my complaints. The problem here is that I’m running out of good things to say about the show. I enjoy it tremendously but I can’t keep writing that week after week.

So, it’s to the dogs!

The Episode of All Creatures Great and Small

We start the episode with Tristan being entrusted to take the lead on his own calls. It’s a big step for him although it’s clear Siegfried, Mrs. Hall, and James all have lingering doubts. In any case, off go Tristan and James to attend to business.

Meanwhile, Siegfried stays back to perform an operation on a dog. The operation is a success, Mrs. Hall lays a blanket by the space heater, the dog is dropped off. The dog whines but Siegfried assures us, that is to say, Mrs. Hall, that the dog is fine and whining is a normal under the circumstances.

In any case, the episode continues. Tristan is filing down the teeth of race horses and is somewhat intimidated by their spirit. He’s kicked in the knee by one of the animals but soldiers through the pain. He spots the daughter of the owner and later maneuvers a date with her for his birthday party.

James continues to struggle with telling Helen about his job offer. Eventually the various plot lines come to a head at the party. Helen already knows about the job offer but she and James have a heartfelt moment to smooth over hurt feelings.

Meanwhile, Siegfried, annoyed by Tristan’s acting performance during the day’s rounds and the whining of the dog reveals that the young man failed his exams. Tristan is crushed. The situation is not resolved but Tristan enjoys some sort of revenge by nicking some of his brother’s good whiskey. I approve, Tristan, I approve.

My Nitpicks

I have two very nitpicky problems with this otherwise excellent episode. I’m honestly more worried about the dog and the damn space heater than I am about Tristan on his own. That’s a problem. Spoiler, there’s nothing wrong with the dog. Siegfried is perfectly correct and the dog is fine despite all the whining and fussing he’ll be doing for the next hour.

It’s entirely possible the writers want us to be worried about the dog only as a way to show that Siegfried, for all his bluster, is an excellent veterinarian. I think that’s a reasonable explanation but it doesn’t solve the issue. I spent almost the entire episode worrying about that dog! Is it going to get burned by the space heater? Was the operation a failure? Is it going to die? Why is whining? Is it going to live? I’m distracted from the main plot.

My other nitpick is even more nitpicky. Why isn’t Tristan hobbling around for the rest of the episode? That horse kicked him right good. I want limps!

Conclusion

The episode illustrates why this show works so well. They continued with the main plot lines built previously while creating episodic conflict. It’s interesting to watch. I’m always eager to find out what will happen next.

A wonderful little sequence occurred at the dinner party when Tristan’s date noted Helen and James sitting next to one another. The date is a good friend of Hugh, who Helen left at the altar. She gets a little snippy with Helen who defends herself but also admits she waited too long to end things and accepts responsibility for the hurt and embarrassment Hugh suffered.

The date apologizes for being snippy and Helen accepts. It’s a scene showing we don’t need Hugh to be a villain and Helen to be a hero in all things. Life is complicated and there isn’t always a good answer. This small scene makes me believe the characters are real people in real situations. That’s the goal in a fictional show, to invest the audience in the lives of the characters.

Well done, despite my nitpicks.

Tom Liberman

Around the World with 80 Coincidentally Helpful Things

Posted on by
Around the world in 80 Days

This week’s episode of Around the World in 80 Days filled me with incredulity from beginning to end. To eliminate suspense immediately, it was not the good kind of incredulity. Almost everything in this episode revolved around either a remarkable coincidence or illogical behavior.

The episode also lacked a clear central theme to anchor the various plot lines. It bounced from one plot to the next and I found none of them particularly compelling. All in all, I’d say this was probably the worst episode of the series so far.

I’m saddened by this episode because it held tremendous potential. All of the competing plot lines had the possibility to be compelling stories on their own but none of them grabbed me. But, enough prelude, onto the review.

Competing Main Plots

A plot in this episode of Around the World revolves around Fogg and his companion’s inability to access money after arriving in Hong Kong. Exciting, huh? Not really and particularly egregious because the other plots are much better.

There is the governor and his wife and her yearning for romance. This is something meaty to grab the heart. Then we delve into vile colonial looting of native relics. That’s something well-worth exploring in detail. Fix’s article exposes Fogg’s lost love and this causes him great embarrassment. That’s drama and character arc for both Fogg and Fix. Good stuff. Lastly is Passepartout’s previous life as a criminal which gets short-shrift indeed.

The problem here is the five ideas are competing for screen time with one another and all of them get a cursory, at best, examination. The episode of Around the World in 80 Days failed to focus on one of its compelling ideas and thus all failed.

Coincidence upon Coincidence

My bigger criticism of this episode is the series of unlikely events that drive the plot. Each one on its own takes me out of immersion as I shake my head, but the endless line of inexplicable actions left me downright peeved.

Once Fogg cannot access his money, we suddenly learn Passepartout speaks Cantonese and is an old acquaintance of high-ranking member of a Chinese Tong. This strains the incredulity because it was not mentioned, nor even hinted at in previous episodes.

Passepartout visits his old friend leaving Fix outside to eat a bowl of soup with chopsticks. I know it’s nitpicky but, seriously, I’ve eaten at Chinese restaurants. They give you one of those flat-bottomed spoons. Frankly, it’s insulting to the Chinese culture.

Fix is trying to eat soup with the chopsticks, comic relief I guess, and the Tong leader asks Passepartout to steal a relic looted by the colonial English. The Tong leader claims he cannot steal it as no Chinese are allowed in the governor’s compound. Only the former thief can do it. It is just so, so unlikely.

Passepartout refuses emphatically as he is not a thief anymore. After the refusal his old friend is apparently ready to kill him but Fix barges in for reasons that are unclear. As writer guy at Pitch Meeting might say when questioned by her appearance, “She barges in because it’s in the script. I wrote it. It’s right here.”

Next our heroes find themselves at the governor’s estate for a party held by the romantically challenged Englishman and his romantically starved wife. In it, Chinese natives act as servants and are seen everywhere. Hmm.

In a stunning coincidence, the governor’s wife brings out the stolen relic and asks Fogg to place around her neck for reasons that are unclear. Passepartout tries to get the governor drunk for reasons that are unclear.

Fogg asks for money and doesn’t get it because it’s important to drive the plot forward. Passepartout, unwilling to steal for money a moment ago, now takes it upon himself to steal the relic. Why? Because it’s in the script, that’s why. The governor’s wife wears the necklace to bed. Ok, whatever, I’ve given up trying to assign rationality to anything that happens.

Passepartout steals the necklace whilst showing off bad-ass ninja skills. Is there anything this man can’t do to forward the plot?

Sometime around midmorning the governor’s wife realizes the necklace isn’t around her neck anymore despite going to bed with it. Immediately it’s decided Fogg stole it because the police find money, in the first place they look, at his quarters.

Cultural Looting is fine when it’s for Love

The governor stole the Chinese relic from the grave because he loves his wife. His wife is romantically fulfilled. Passepartout confesses. I don’t know, I gave up a while ago, I’m not paying a great deal of attention. The governor pardons everyone. There’s a race to stop Fogg from getting flogged. Despite everyone yelling to stop, at precisely noon the first strike is delivered but further punishment is withheld. Yay.

The End

With funds restored our intrepid band boards a liner where Fogg is waylaid by the gun wielding villain. How will he get out of this mess? Maybe Passepartout is actually a time traveler and has a teleportation ray gun. Who knows, who cares?

Tom Liberman

The Gilded Age a Season in an Episode

Posted on by
The Gilded Age

The Gilded Age on HBO premiered this week and, as a history buff, I tuned in with eager anticipation. The Gilded age refers to an incredibly interesting time in the history of the United States as the country transitioned to industrialization.

New money families arose and began to challenge the established wealth that dated back to colonial times. Many of the great family names still around today, Westinghouse, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, Morgan, Guggenheim, Vanderbilt, and more ascended at this time. The time frame gives us a huge historical reality to play with and so many plots to explore.

I eagerly anticipated watching the first episode. I was somewhat disappointed for reasons I’ll detail below but I think the show has a lot of promise. On with the review!

The Gilded Age Plot

The major storyline of The Gilded Age is the conflict between new money and old in the New York social and business world. The Russell family is new money and George is the classic robber baron of the railroad industry. His wife, Bertha, tries desperately to find a place in New York with the established families.

In contrast are the van Rhijn ladies who represent old and snobby money. They want nothing to do with the Bertha and her social plans. The conflict between Bertha and Agnes van Rhijn is the driving force of the story although the younger generation has a role to play as well.

Too Much too Fast

The speed at which the plot developed in the opening episode left my head spinning. We met character after character in a dizzying array of scenes that left me without attachment to any of them. It’s a real shame because several of the characters have an enormous potential to feed future plots.

Peggy Scott as a young writer of ambition. Larry Russel as the son of the George and Bertha, a spirited young fellow eager to be in the world. Gladys Russel as the shy and sweet daughter of new money. Several of the servants in both houses including the scheming Turner and the wise Watson piqued my interest.

I don’t mention Marian Brooks, the niece of Agnes, because the young girl is incredibly boring; but I will deal with that later.

A Whole Season of Potential Gone in One Episode

Sadly, a huge amount of potential was lost as we sprinted through an opening episode that I argue might have been an entire season. The failed party hosted by Bertha served as the climax of the episode. To my mind this should have been the denouement to the entire season.

The premier episode might center around young Marian Brook and the difficult financial state brought on by her father’s reckless spending. The relationship between her and the lawyer, her father’s estrangement from his sisters. Then we might switch to Peggy and her family troubles. The incident that caused her to separate from her father. We might end with the two meeting at the rail station.

The second episode might center on finishing up the magnificent Russel home. Focusing on the two children and Bertha’s ambitions. Spending some time getting to know George and his financial success, how it happened, the old life they are leaving an attempt to reach the upper crust of society. We might meet some of their old friends and finish with the family moving into the new house.

In any case, I’m not going to outline an entire season here but it’s clear to me they rushed things far too fast and left many juicy plots behind in their eagerness to get to the failed party. I feel like I missed out on an entire season of the Gilded Age because of the incessant rush.

The Acting

The acting is stiff and wooden to a level that I can only attribute to the director. It’s as if the actors, many quality performers, are looking over their shoulder to make sure the nun isn’t going to smack them with a ruler because they showed the slightest bit of emotion.

I’m guessing this is designed to display the ultra-formal speech used back in those days. Maybe I’m reading too much into it and it’s just bad acting but I don’t think so. Poor Louisa Jacobson, who portrays Marian and is the center of the story, is like a wooden block. She looks terrified she might make a mistake in every scene. She is not alone though.

Almost everyone is wooden including Carrie Coon as Bertha. Bertha and Marian are the main characters of the story! Even Cynthia Nixon and Christine Baranski, established and quality actors, as the van Rhijn aunts, appear almost frightened to actually perform.

I must take a moment to praise Audra McDonald and Donna Murphy as Dorothy Scott and Mrs. Astor. The two brought real emotion and life to the otherwise dull character interactions. Blake Riston as Oscar van Rhijn was also quite good although his arc seemed fit for a season long storyline rather than something to be quickly revealed in the first episode.

Conclusion

I’m not completely disappointed with The Gilded Age. It had a few good moments and I think if the actors are allowed to act and the pace of the story slows, there’s a good chance it might become an excellent series.

The first episode is disappointing.

Tom Liberman

Opening Sequence Analysis All Creatures versus Around the World

Posted on by
Opening Sequence

Sunday night television on PBS here in St. Louis offers Around the World in 80 Days followed by All Creatures Great and Small. It’s been a great opportunity for me to give my opinions on the two shows. I’ve done so over the last couple of weeks.

Today I’m going to narrow my focus down a little and simple compare the opening sequences of both shows. What works? What doesn’t work? Why does it work? Why doesn’t it work? I will attempt to refrain from being critical of other elements of both shows although I promise nothing. Anyone who’s read my other reviews is sure to know my thoughts on the merits of each of the shows.

Opening Sequence Around the World

The opening sequence of Around the World in 80 Days involves our three protagonists walking through a fly-infested region appearing somewhat lost and disheveled. They come across a young girl who leads them to a village. In the village they encounter a matriarchal figure who explains a wedding between her daughter and a young man is planned for later.

This sequence probably took about five minutes although it seemed to drag interminably.

Opening Sequence of All Creatures

The opening sequence of All Creatures Great and Small has our four protagonists walking along a road at the back of a funeral. The camera focuses on a woman, apparently the widow, her two small children, and a strapping young fellow. A farmer coming the other way tips his cap.
The scene took perhaps a minute or two and not a single word of dialog is spoken.

The Implications

The implications of the opening sequence are quite important in telling a story. The audience needs to know the focus of the episode. What is the story going to be about?

Around the World and 80 Days and All Creatures Great and Small are certainly two different kinds of stories with apparently little in common. But, if you look closely, there were similarities this week. In both shows a group of strangers drive the external conflict and plot.

In this case the implication from the opening sequence in Around the World revolved, to my mind, around the little girl and the family matriarch. The wedding didn’t seem like it was going to be that important, there was something about the girl.

In All Creatures it seemed clear to me that the widow and her children were the focus of the conflict in the coming episode.

How it Unfolded in Around the World

This is where, in my opinion, the opening sequence failed in Around the World and succeeded in All Creatures. It turns out the young girl was unimportant and even the matriarch of the family only played a smaller role. The wedding brought on the conflict as it turned out the groom deserted his unit. A young British lieutenant and his troops arrived in the middle of the wedding and dragged the groom off.

A moment to commend Charlie Hamblett for his portrayal of Lieutenant Bathurst. The only performance I found convincing. I shall not dwell, onto my focus.

The problem here is the opening sequence didn’t introduce the antagonist or even really let us know about the main conflict of the episode. It completely misdirected us to the young girl.

How it Unfolded in All Creatures

We immediately find ourselves entangled in the main plot of James helping the widow with her sick cows. The widow is desperately trying to manage the farm and her two sons with the help of a young man but it’s not easy. The cows are sick, they must be kept inside, this costs money. The local farmers think she should sell.

The opening sequence did not lie to us. It introduced us to the main characters of the story and the conflict of the sick cows is a direct result of the death of the farmer. Everything unfolded in a completely natural and organic fashion. It made sense. The story grabbed me and held me. I didn’t find myself confused.

Conclusions

This is why an opening sequence is important. It prepares the audience for what is to come. I think All Creatures succeeded in a two-minute sequence with no dialog where Around the World failed in a much longer sequence with too much dialog.

The failure and success in the first few minutes of the episodes tell us a great deal about the general quality of the writing in both shows. It’s no surprise that the entire episode of All Creatures engrossed me whereas 80 Days largely left me unsatisfied.

But, I promised I wouldn’t get into all of that, so I won’t.

Tom Liberman

All Creatures Great and Small Episode Two

Posted on by
All Creatures Great and Small

Ah, that’s the stuff. After a lackluster hour watching Around the World in 80 Days, we get some excellent entertainment. If you hadn’t guessed already, I enjoyed the second episode of All Creatures Great and Small as much as I liked the first.

This episode of All Creatures Great and Small expands on the main conflicts introduced in the first episode while also introducing potential romantic interests for Siegfried and Mrs. Hall. The major story arc continues to be James potentially taking a new job and Siegfried’s unwillingness to listen to James’s ideas.

Inciting Incidents

Episode two unfolds leisurely, as is the general pace of All Creatures Great and Small. The big Daffodil Day festival is around the corner and the gang all purchases tickets except Mrs. Hall who prefers to stay at home reading a book. Siegfried and Tristan leave to tend to an important customer James apparently forget the day before. Meanwhile James and Mrs. Hall are left to hold down the fort but their orderly schedule is disrupted by an emergency. Helen drops by because Tristan told her James had something to ask.

These inciting incidents largely direct the rest of the episode, as it should be. The events of the opening sequence let the audience know what to expect. This is nothing more than standard writing technique but it seems absent in most other shows I watch. Every thread introduced in the opening sequence of this episode of All Creatures Great and Small plays an important role the rest of the way.

The Incidents Lead the Plot

At surgery, Mrs. Hall redirects all the morning clients to the afternoon in order for James to tend to the wounded dog. A trap caught the dog and mangled its leg. The owner is a veteran who also has a wounded leg. He and Mrs. Hall find a connection and it quickly becomes apparent this is a romantic interest.

James saves the dog, of course, although recommends it be kept overnight to make sure infection hasn’t set in. Events unfold naturally in a way that makes sense. There is drama without piercing music telling us the situation is frightening. I found myself far more afraid for the dog than for Fogg and Passepartout an hour earlier as they stumbled through sandstorms and desert heat. Why? It all seemed real, natural, believable, part of a flowing narrative. I am immersed.

Meanwhile, Siegfried defers to an important client who threatens to move his business to another veterinarian. Then we have some comic relief with Tristan and a large sow. On the return trip Tristan makes some pointed remarks in regards to Siegfried’s timidness in regards to the client and general demeanor of not wanting to take risks in his old age. This speech drives future narratives between Siegfried and James in regards to upgrading the surgery to modern standards. In other words, it is there for a reason.

The Pay Off

All Creatures Great and Small does not disappoint. Everything setup in the opening sequence comes to bear in the last half of the episode. James and Helen dance at the festival. Siegfried stands up to the important customer. Mrs. Hall sits alone petting the wounded dog as a symbolic substitute for a romantic relationship with its owner.

We, the audience, are rewarded for paying attention to events. Things don’t come and go for no logical reason therefore it’s important we watch each moment of All Creatures Great and Small with attention. When I know something is pertinent, important, I care. I care about the characters and what happens to them, I’m invested.

Wrapping Things Up

We end with questions unanswered and further intrigue ahead while still wrapping up this episode in a satisfactory fashion. The wounded dog is fine. Helen is ready to move on. Mrs. Harris declines a polite invitation for a dog walk but we know it’s not the last of the handsome man we’ll see.

Meanwhile, James’s mother took it into her own hands to accept the position offered at the modern veterinarian clinic leaving James torn. He wants to stay here but he feels an obligation to his parents who paid his way through school.

Siegfried makes of point of telling James that suggestions for improving the surgery are welcome although we’re not completely sure if we believe the stern owner.

Conclusion

Another excellent episode of All Creatures Great and Small. The writers, actors, set designers, and all the rest clearly pay attention to details. Simple things are not taken for granted. Near the end of the episode an old client comes in who reminds us of how James and Helen spent the night attending a pregnant doggo. It’s the same dog or at least one that looks the same.

It’s a real pleasure watching this show and I eagerly await next week’s episode.

Tom Liberman

Around the World in 80 Days Episode Three

Posted on by
Around the world in 80 Days

The quality of the third episode of Around the World in 80 Days falls somewhere between the first and the second in my opinion. The structure of the story was fairly similar to that of the previous episode. We meet some new and interesting people, and our heroes find themselves in grave danger.

In a travel tales such as this, these sorts of plot devices are fairly integral to moving the story along. The protagonist and companions find themselves in a desperate situation and must extricate themselves either with the aid or hinderance of the new characters.

In this case the new characters are based on people from real life, most notably Lady Jane Digby. I heartily approve including historical figures in a work fiction of this nature but found myself sadly disappointed in the amount of screen time for Digby. In fact, that is my primary complaint.

The Episode

This episode of Around the World in 80 Days finds our heroes aboard a ship headed for the Suez Canal with everything seemingly in order but, of course, that changes quickly enough. The ship is delayed by the threat of pirates and they find themselves in the city waiting for a British war ship to escort them to Aden.

At the port our trio spots the scandalous Digby and her husband and ignore them as social outcasts.

Our heroes, led by Fogg, decide to hire camels to cross Saudi Arabia to get to Aden. A distance of some 1500 miles although shortened dramatically for narrative purposes to a three-day trip. Fogg refuses to allow Fix to go as the journey is dangerous. The guide abandons Fogg and Passepartout and only Fix hiring Digby saves our heroes.

They continue on in the desert where Bedouin tribesmen attack and only the quick thinking of Fogg and the marksmanship of Passepartout save the day. Eventually they arrive safely in Aden where the erstwhile fake valet is offered money in order to sabotage the endeavor and seems to agree to the proposal.

Pacing in Around the World in 80 Days

This episode of Around the World in 80 Days suffered from a lack of proper pacing. Parts that needed fleshing out and time sped by in an instant while sections that didn’t require a great deal of effort lingered too long. In addition, Digby and husband, interesting characters to be certain, suffered from a lack of development.

We start on the deck of the steamer headed across the Mediterranean toward the Suez Canal. Valuable time is wasted in watching Passepartout attempt to throw food in his mouth while Fogg and Fix talk about nothing useful. Then, suddenly, they are in a city where we are treated to a long series of expositions.

Exposition

Fogg complains about the captain delaying the ship because of pirates. There’s Lady Jane Digby and let me tell you all about her. Why didn’t we see the captain explaining the pirate situation to Fogg? Why wasn’t the history Digby told through conversation with Fix later as they are chasing after Fogg? Exposition is lazy and not particularly entertaining. I was extremely bored through the opening sequences.

Finally, the story gets going when Fogg foolishly trusts a local to guide them to Aden for a mere ten pounds. Passepartout is skeptical and fights for Fix to join them but Fogg insists on having his own way despite the fact he can’t even unbutton his shirt properly. I liked this scene because it shows Fogg’s naivete and incompetence as part of the Hero’s Journey.

Left behind, Fix hires Digby and her husband to chase after Fogg. This was the opportunity for us to learn about Digby and her past connection with Fix’s father. An extended scene with Fix, Digby, and her husband to explain all the nuances of their connections seemed in order but we didn’t get it.

Then we waste more time back in London showing the embarrassing financial situation of Fogg’s friend at the Reform Club. This entire plot line just takes away from the main story of Around the World in 80 Days, that is to say, getting around the world. I shall only briefly mention the improperly arranged Snooker table.

The Desert

Fogg and Passepartout find themselves abandoned in the desert. We waste a tremendous amount of time watching them slowly bake. The scenes just don’t convey desperate and dangerous. The sandstorm, the looming death. I felt nothing, no sense of danger.

Then, suddenly everyone is rescued. Why not spend most of that time with Fix, and Digby and her husband? They are compelling characters with interesting stories. In episode two we got to spend time with the industrialist and his son.

The best scene happened when Digby’s husband virulently defends her. I found the actor didn’t fit the role in appearance but I absolutely believed this was a proud man who deeply loved his wife. It was largely the only compelling moment of the episode.

Digby tells Fix outright going forward is almost certain death at the hands of Bedouins but suddenly, for reasons I can’t figure out, offers to take them to Aden if that’s what Fix wants. I want Fix to prove her worth to Digby, to show she’s a woman cut from the same cloth, to drive the plot forward.

In any case, the predictable Bedouin attack is handled badly from a cinematographic perspective. Our heroes repeatedly tell us they can’t see the attackers and are firing blindly into the night at the sound of hooves but we, the audience, can see pretty clearly. I guess the decision was made so that we can visually see the actions of the various protagonists.

It seems to me a scene of darkness, thundering hooves, shouts, gunshots, a scream from Fix, confusion, and mayhem was in order. I might have found that dramatic. What I saw was rather dull. I won’t talk about the flammable properties of raw crude oil as the mechanism for Fogg to save the day.

Conclusion

Another decent episode of Around the World in 80 Days. Certainly not compelling or particularly good but watchable and moderately entertaining. I suspect this is what we’ll get the rest of the way.

Tom Liberman

All Creatures Great and Small Episode 1 Review

Posted on by
All Creatures Great and Small

In addition to Around the World in 80 Days we get the first episode of the second season of All Creatures Great and Small. Your faithful blogger is going to have busy Mondays for a few weeks. You can refer to my review of the first season of All Creatures Great and Small here.

I won’t go too deeply into my thoughts on the first season. It was very enjoyable. I anticipated the second season with great hopes but also deep fears. Wrecking a show with sequel seasons is not exactly impossible. However, I’ll dispense with any drama, All Creatures Great and Small is once again great!

Spectacular Opening Scene

I can’t express enough the wonderfulness of the opening scene of All Creatures Great and Small. I’ve written a review of the first episode of Around the World and the opening sequence here is something the writers of that show should commit to memory.

We start off with James working in what is clearly not Darrowby and Siegfried’s surgery. What is going on? Has he left? Drama from the first second without a word of dialog! James finishes splinting kitty’s leg and then all is explained. The veterinarian at this high-tech surgery offers James a job after his two-week stint filling in.

The vet is highly impressed with James and so is the nurse. Conflict! Basically, what is clearly going to be a season long storyline is introduced in the first minute of the episode. This, this, this is how you do it! There is also mention of transferring the practice to pets instead of farm animals, another season-long conflict I suspect.

Now, we know James loves Darrowby and there is no way he’s taking this job. So, what do we do? We give him reasons. His father is ill, his mother wants him home, he has friends, knows the town. Within five minutes of the credits, we have drama, conflict, a season-long story with an unknown outcome.

Then there are the little touches. The nurse is keen on James so a potential love interest is thrown into the mix. The vet is kind and gives James time to think about the job offer. The mother makes a home cooked meal and tries to convince James to stay with the phrase, “Home is where the heart is.”

Meanwhile the father knows his son, he knows James is making his own way and is proud of it. It’s not a black and white decision to stay or go. It’s shades of gray.

This is delicious, delightful. We all know where James’s heart is. Mom says you can’t get home cooking like this in Darrowby but we know Mrs. Hall’s feasts all too well. Yes, mom, I’m afraid he can. Mother is saying one thing but we, the audience, are hearing something entirely different. It’s superb writing. The writers understand the story, the characters. This is how you start a season.

Another Conflict

James arrives back in Darrowby and we find out it’s around Easter thanks to Tristan eating some of the chocolate egg. Simple, effective.

We then cut to Siegfried’s house where Mrs. Hall has embroidered professional credentials on Tristan’s bag. Uh oh, we say to ourselves even before Siegfried tries to stop the plan. We know Tristan hasn’t passed his exam. Another season-long conflict brewing!

The Main Story

Only after setting up the entire season, do we get into the episode. There are two story lines, one involving a dead bird and the other a wayward puppy.

The dead bird allows us a little comic relief, provided as usual by Tristan. I’d like to take a moment to discuss a small touch. Mrs. Tompkins budgie needs its beak clipped. The bird is her only companion these last ten years since she lost her vision. Tristan is on the job. That is until the bird dies.

Now, there are some people in this world, not to name names, who will immediately look up the lifespan of a budgie to see if natural causes are possible or if Tristan just committed parakeetacide. Wikipedia informs people like the aforementioned that a Budgerigar has a lifespan of five to eight years. So, natural causes are perfectly reasonable and poor Tristan did nothing wrong.

It is little touches like this that bring a smile to my face. A writer included the dialog about the bird being a companion for ten years. Someone knows the lifespan of a Budgerigar. It all fits. They took the time to do it right. Doing so isn’t easy but it is appreciated.

Small Problems

My only issues with the episode are nitpicky and unimportant. Having all the sheep passed out was overkill. Anyone would know to train Scruff rather than kill him. It didn’t take a genius to figure out the solution to the problem.

That being said, conflict is necessary and there’s nothing wrong with a little drama to move the story forward.

The Music

I’d like to take a moment to reiterate my thoughts on the music from this show. They don’t shove it down your throat like every other drama. The music is there, quiet, subtle, enhancing a scene. It’s not blaring and distracting. I don’t understand why this is apparently so difficult to understand.

Conclusion

Superb start to the second season of All Creatures Great and Small. I can’t wait for more.

Tom Liberman

Around the World in 80 Days Episode 2 Review

Posted on by
Around the World in 80 Days

I watched the second episode of Around the World in 80 Days and enjoyed it more than the first. This, if you’ve read my first review, is damning with faint praise. Still, I thought this episode showed an understanding of the Hero’s Journey and the structure of a good story even if it didn’t generally succeed.

In this episode our band traverses Italy by train heading toward, well, that is a bit of mystery to me as the geography didn’t make much sense. I’ll get to that later.

The Strangers

We start the episode on a train with a group of Italians led by an industrialist giving a speech and being interrupted by his son who spots our heroes in a balloon. Soon enough the balloon crashes and Fogg, Fix, and Passepartout climb aboard the train where class restrictions send the Frenchman into the rear with the unwashed masses while our heroes enjoy the luxury of privilege.

I was a bit confused about where our heroes got their evening wear but I shall not nitpick too much, it’s not important.

The idea of the main characters encountering strangers and interacting with them is obviously going to be a major theme of Around the World in 80 Days. This requires a deft touch because we only meet people for a short time. I expounded on the problems with this in my review of the first episode in Paris.

This time the situation is handled with greater aplomb. We actually get to meet the father and son while seeing their conflicts first hand. We see the son’s wonder at new inventions and the father’s staid demeanor. This helps later when the two become focal points in the story.

Personal Conflict in Around the World in 80 Days

Conflict makes a story and we have it aboard the train in two ways. First, Fogg is berated by the Italian father for not being much of an adventurer. It’s a good conflict in that it exposes Fogg’s weaknesses but I’m just not sure from whence it came. Why such vitriol? Still, this is actual character development and a good thing. We learn Fogg is insecure about his life and rather timid in nature. Episode one might have spent time developing all of this but at least we’re getting it now.

Meanwhile Passepartout is getting drunk and losing at cards in back. He is upset by his brother’s death, understandable although it came and went so fast, I’m having trouble finding empathy for the Frenchman. Then Abigail Fix arrives on the scene.

Fix begins blathering on and on about how she is independent and doesn’t need a man. This annoys the card players as they simply want to play. It’s an interesting scene but I am confused. Is Fix actually this socially oblivious? If so, why didn’t we see it earlier? In her first scene she seemed to be interacting with the rough and tumble newspaper men with ease and style.

Perhaps Fix is a card sharp who recognized Passepartout’s inept playing and contrived her social ineptitude as a way to limit the Frenchman’s losses without embarrassing him. This is an interesting story idea but, necessarily, we need to know Fix is good at cards. Again, the failures of the first episode of Around the World in 80 Days is haunting us here in the second.

The Bridge is Out!

Conflict is necessary. Sure, the bridge being out is contrived but that’s fine. We writers need to do things like that. Yes, the son’s gaping wound is overkill but I can live with it and it’s necessary for the boy to eventually inspire the despondent Fogg. More on that in a moment.

The reluctant protagonist finding out he has the resources necessary to overcome obstacles shows a firm understanding of the Hero’s Journey. Fogg figures out the load of the train and the support of the remaining track and guides our team, with no small help from Fix and Passepartout, to success.

My problem with this scene is that we didn’t know Fogg was an engineer by trade or at least has significant education in that regard. Maybe it was mentioned in passing at the Reform Club but not with enough emphasis to make me notice. This is the sort of development we needed in the first episode of Around the World in 80 Days.

Nitpicking

I know I said I wasn’t going to nitpick, but I would have simply emptied out the carriage of seats and other heavy items. Then there’s enough coal for the journey. It makes no sense.

In addition, they mention it is six hours back to Rome and two hours to their destination. Rome is basically near the center of Italy and I’m guessing they are heading south to catch a ship across the Mediterranean to Cairo. This indicates a journey to Taranto which is 268 miles from Rome. Now, I’m no engineer but the time scale seems way off to me.

The bankruptcy of Fogg’s fellow Reform Club member and need to create further obstacles is sprung on us too quickly and, frankly, I find it unnecessary. There should be plenty of conflict on the journey without the mysterious villain. Why weren’t the financial troubles mentioned earlier if they are so important? Again, missed opportunities in the first episode.

Fogg the Hero

Eventually they arrive at their destination and Fogg is still despondent for some reason. Fogg just saved the boy’s life; he solved a major obstacle. Why isn’t Fogg elated, ready to take on any adventure? In any case, a quick word from the wounded lad and he’s ready to go again. The writers have the right idea of Fogg needing inspiration, I just thought a lighter touch necessary.

Conclusion

I enjoyed this episode far more than the first. It shows an understanding of story structure, character arc, the Hero’s Journey, conflict, and other elements required for engrossing entertainment. Having said that, it all seemed heavy handed at best.

It gives me hope.

Around the World in 80 Days Episode 1 Review

Posted on by
Around the World in 80 Days

I’m a nerd. When I learned PBS planned to air a new version of Around the World in 80 Days it caught my attention. I read Jules Verne as a young boy and loved his novels. Journey to the Center of the Earth, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, and, of course, Around the World in 80 Day. They fired my youthful imagination and the idea of a new series, with David Tennant of Doctor Who fame as the lead, brought a big smile to my face.

I watched the first episode on Sunday and came away sadly disappointed. Hopefully things will improve but my problems are many. Let me explain.

Series versus Movie

One of the great things about a television series based on a book is simply the amount time afforded to explore ideas. Books are rich, complex, long. It is often incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to bring a book to the big screen with any success. It requires the screenwriter to pick and choose what to show in the limited time available.

A television series largely does not have that limitation. If you’d like to see a great series adaptation of a book, I must direct you to His Dark Material. The books are complex and eight episodes per novel give the story time to develop.

That is why I eagerly anticipated Sunday night.

Rush, Rush, Rush, and More Rush

In my opinion the entire episode of Around the World in 80 days rushed things at every step. We are introduced in short order to Phileas Fogg, Passepartout, and added character Abigail Fortescue, quickly and given fast snippets into their nature. Little time is spent showing the audience the quiet, boring, routine life of Fogg which is crucial to understanding what is to come.

Why not spend some languorous time developing Fogg in particular but also the other main characters? An entire episode getting to know all three, particularly the revolutionary Frenchman Passepartout and his past. Taking a little time here sets things up for later. It gives us an emotional investment in the characters.

Madness in Paris

Instead, we are immediately rushed into the main plot where our adventurers find themselves without a train in Paris thanks to a citizen uprising. If we knew about Passepartout’s brother, about his past, then everything that happens in this episode touches the viewer emotionally.

Frankly, the entire episode in France is added and not in the book at all. I don’t mind that, well and good, but this is all happening in one episode. The Paris excursion needed an entire episode on its own. We need to understand Passepartout, his brother, their cause, their grievances, the establishment’s position but it’s shoved down our throats like a spotted dick pudding at the Reform Club.

The destruction in Paris, the assassination attempt, the death of Passepartout’s brother which I’m guessing was meant to be heart-wrenching, the ridiculous chase scene played more for laughs than anything else, it all took me out of immersion. What is going on? Why is this happening?

The Balloon

The balloon scene in Around the World in 80 Days is iconic and we got it here but it made no sense. The great inventor whose wife died is awaiting with the fully inflated and ready to go balloon? Come on. Does anyone believe that?

What’s sad is the story of the inventor is touching. It’s a great little addition but it comes and goes so quickly it is meaningless to me. I don’t care about him or his wife.

Then the balloon flying the direction they want, over the Alps apparently, it’s all happening so fast, what’s happening? I can’t keep track? Who is flying the balloon? Why does Fogg know how to do it?

Conclusion

It’s my opinion the first episode of Around the World in 80 Days could easily be three episodes. The first in London getting to know all the characters including foreshadowing of trouble in France. It might end with the group getting off the train in Paris amidst the mayhem.

The second then spending the entire time in Paris with Passepartout, his brother, Abigail, getting into and out of trouble but at a reasonable pace. And finally, the third focusing on the balloon, the inventor, the death of his wife and the eventual escape from Paris.

Everything happened far too fast with little explanation and I felt lost, confused, and mainly disappointed.

A Quick Note about Abigail

I have no trouble with the addition of a plucky, female reporter added to the team. It’s a nice modern addition to the structure of the story. That being said, she seems to do little except show how darn plucky she is. The character deserves more.

Tom Liberman

Why I dislike Succession on HBO

Posted on by
Succession

Succession is a highly rated and successful show on HBO and I recently began watching. It garners 93% on the Tomatometer from Rotten Tomato critics and 81% approval from audiences. The show is equally highly rated on IMBD with a score of 8.6. It has two Golden Globes and nine Emmy awards in the first two seasons.

My personal perusal of reviews and audience reaction confirms these numbers with sentiment for the show running quite high. People seem to love the storyline, the acting, the directing, the sets, just about everything to do with Succession.

I Hate it

I hate Succession. I’m certainly not telling people who love the show they are wrong. I understand I’m merely three episodes into the third season of Succession and my opinions are based on extremely limited information. Still, I can barely make it through an episode.

Just because I don’t like a show is no reason it shouldn’t be successful. I find most of the blockbuster movies made today to be awful and they make hundreds of millions of dollars. If you like it, so be it. I don’t and I’m going to tell you why, because that’s what I do.

Overview

Succession tells the story of media and entertainment mogul Logan Roy along with his family. It is billed as a Dark Comedy although, in the episodes I’ve seen, I don’t recall laughing a single time.

I’m not going to dive deep into what makes a show good or bad but if you’d like my thoughts on that, take a look at this blog.

The Dialog

The first thing I hate is the writing. It isn’t so much terrible as it is untrue. The dialog seems written more toward what the audience expects the characters to say and do instead of what the actual characters might actually say. I find it almost universally unbelievable.

I find Kendall to be particularly implausible considering his educational and family background. His historical references don’t make sense. Ok, he has self-doubt and struggles with wanting to be liked. Could you do that with subtleness rather than hitting the audience over the head with a sledge hammer every single time he opens his mouth?

Shiv takes a minute of hemming and hawing and umming and uhhing to speak a line of dialog. I want to kick her in the shin, spit it out!

Roman’s lines seem written for a thirteen-year-old, and I apologize to boys that age for the comparison. “Ha ha, I said fart,” is about the crux of it.

Greg’s bumbling is so pronounced and severe I don’t even believe he’s human.

I could go on but I’ll stop there.

Scene Structures

The scenes come fast and furious but I see no connection from one to the next. Is it an hour later? The same moment but a new location with different characters? A week later? There’s no rhythm to the show. It’s just one scene after the next, each seemingly with the sole purpose of a one liner at the end hoping for a laugh. Spoiler, I didn’t laugh.

So many things happen that make no sense I can’t even begin to get into it all. I’ll give special mention Shiv’s big speech. Why was there a panic when Kendall came into the building? Like they weren’t expecting it? How incompetent are they?

Then Kendall suddenly comes up with a great plan to ruin Shiv’s speech by playing loud music. He sends a lacky out to buy equipment at the last second. Someone runs hundreds of feet of wire, interfaces with a receiver, and the master plan goes into effect.

Let’s discount this should take an hour at best and mention a hundred people see all of it happening and can’t call security? Can’t unplug the speakers? Utter nonsense. This happens all the time in this show. I’m constantly taken out of immersion and into stunned incredulity at the stupidity of it all.

Acting

I can’t blame the actors because the dialog is so bad. Credit to Brian Cox as Logan, Alan Ruck as Connor, and J. Smith-Cameron as Gerri as remotely believable in main roles. Most of the good acting performances come from bit players, probably because their lines aren’t written with audience approval in mind.

Conclusion

I find the show painful to watch. I’m not immersed in the world, I’m shaking my head at dialog that makes no sense, scenes that come out of nowhere and return to oblivion after a stupid one liner. Everything is rushed, pushed, shoved, harassed, and jammed into place. There is no reflection, no pacing, and hardly a likable character. An hour seems like a day. It’s painful.

Bring the hate, you lovers of Succession. I can take it.

Tom Liberman

Are the Ruby Rose Accusations Delusional?

Posted on by
Ruby Rose

Model turned actress Ruby Rose performed as the lead for the first season of Warner Bros. Television version of Batwoman. She left the show after that season and recently made serious accusations against other actors, the production staff, and the crew.

Ruby Rose claims both her serious injuries and another’s occurred on set because of negligence and corner cutting. In addition, Ruby Rose claims there was pressure to return to work while still injured and that several fellow actors were abusive to women on set.

Batwoman

Batwoman, now in its third season, continues to receive reasonably good reviews and moderately decent ratings for the network it is on. There is a lot of ill-feeling toward Batwoman because it is generally considered to promote a “Woke” agenda. Ruby Rose herself is an outspoken proponent of the LBGTQia+ (yes, I had to look that up) community.

Needless to say, there are quite a few outspoken people happy to believe both the worst and best about Ruby Rose and her accusations. That being the case, I’m seeing plenty of hot opinions on these accusations.

The Response

The actors accused of behaving in a toxic fashion deny it completely. The company claims it was Ruby Rose who behaved badly on set. Warner Bros. claims they fired her because of her own bad behavior, showing up late, treating crew badly, not knowing her lines, storming off set in a rage on multiple occasions.

What Really Happened

It’s likely we’ll never really know what happened but my suspicion, without any kind of conclusive proof, is that Ruby Rose is exaggerating minor events and possibly even fabricating much of what happened. If that’s true, then why is she doing it when it’s pretty clear those she accused will dispute her claims?

One of the strange things in human nature is the ability to become completely delusional about reality. It’s my opinion that is in play here with Ruby Rose. She’s surrounded herself with Yes People who fuel this delusion. Online she gets endless support from those who tie their own belief system to that of Rose and they will support anything she says.

Conclusion

Here is where I think I’ll lose everyone reading along, nodding their heads in complete agreement, the Ruby Rose haters. I honestly think former President Trump, and many of his allies, engage in this practice almost constantly. They are surrounded by True Believers who tolerate the most abhorrent behavior and fuel it to levels of delusional insanity.

We must disagree with people we like and support when they do things with which we disagree. If we don’t, we create evil monsters, capable of damage beyond comprehension. If we continue down that road this country is in serious trouble.

I say to you, stand up for what is right, no matter who says it. Fight against what is wrong, no matter the source. The world will be a better place.

Tom Liberman

White Lotus Ultimately Disappointing

Posted on by
White Lotus

What is White Lotus?

White Lotus is a recently released mini-series which received acclaim from both critics and audience. It tells the tale of a group of travelers at a luxury resort and expands on their personal problems while hinting at a murder mystery.

Really Good for While

The thing about White Lotus is that it’s really quite good in almost every respect. It’s not a situation like The Nevers or Miss Scarlet. Those shows, while many people certainly enjoy them greatly, I found to be almost without redeeming qualities.

In White Lotus the writing is well-paced and interesting. The characters slowly reveal themselves to us through dialog and events rather than obtrusive exposition. In particular the Quinn character story arc spoke to me in a number of ways.

Steve Zahn as Quinn’s father annoyed me to no end but slowly grew into an interesting and fully three-dimensional character. The acting is largely excellent. I thought Jake Lacy as the annoying husband to the confused and unhappy Alexandra Daddario particularly effective. Connie Britton peeled away the crazy layers of her character with wild-eyed abandon.

The sets were lovely, the cinematography well done. Quinn going outside to sleep on the beach as the sun set and whales breeched is an image I won’t soon forget.

Why it Doesn’t Succeed Fully

You might be wondering at this point as to why I found White Lotus disappointing if all I can manage to do is heap praise upon it.

It’s the ending. Perhaps I should say some of the endings. I don’t mind a story that doesn’t tie everything up in a nice little bow, in fact I general prefer a little ambiguity. I also don’t mind an ending that isn’t happy. That’s real life and it happens.

The fate of Rachel in a golden prison with Shane is not my problem. Nor is the conclusion of the Nicole story with her joyously sprinkling the ashes of her dead mother. Those two I liked, it’s everyone else’s ending that disappointed.

I really don’t know what to make of the Paula and Olivia ending. What happened? Are they still friends? Did they learn anything. What about poor Kai? Manipulated by Paula to salvage her own conscious at being of color but living in luxury.

I worry that Quinn won’t even be able to make it back from the airport to the resort with no phone and no money. How will he survive? His parents certainly won’t let the plane leave without Quinn on board.

What about Belinda? What will she do with the wad of cash? Will Nicole run the business opportunity by her team and change her mind?

Armand’s story seemed to simply justify the premise of the opening scene where we know someone died. It didn’t seem organic to me.

In the End

Too many of the endings just weren’t endings at all. I found myself unsatisfied. I’m certainly not saying White Lotus is bad, it’s quite good really and I very much enjoyed watching it. I’m looking forward to a second season reportedly in the works with new guests.

I guess my point here is that endings are really important. If you can’t find a good ending then every wonderful thing leading to that point is forgotten. White Lotus was close to wonderful and I’d recommend it even though the ending left me disappointed.

Tom Liberman

Your Mind is Altered by Bad Fighting in Movies

Posted on by
Bad Fighting

The Most Dangerous Game

While watching The Most Dangerous Game, 1932 version, I found myself laughing at the bad fighting. Then I realized something interesting. What I considered poorly choreographed brawling actually fairly accurately depicted a fight between combatant with few martial skills.

The bad fighting took place between the main character, the villain, and several hired thugs in the climactic scene. The fighters ran at one another, flailed wildly, scored a few glancing blows, and ended up in largely wrestling matches.

Here’s the thing though, the bad fighting was actually more realistic than what we see in heavily choreographed fight scenes today.

The Thing about Bad Fighting

I can’t fight and I’m betting most of you can’t either. Sure, there are some people out there trained in boxing or martial arts skills but when it comes to a brawl with no rules and simple instincts, I think even some of them might end up in a mess of a fight like in The Most Dangerous Game.

While watching the climactic fight and giggling at the bad fighting, I suddenly realized the heavily scripted, well-acted, and brutal fights of today’s movies are actually the real bad fighting. My brain expects people to duck blows. My brain expects people to throw speedy and accurate punches whilst someone is trying to do the same to me. That’s the nonsense. That’s the bad fighting.

Why Bad Fighting is Good Fighting

You see, bad fighting is actually good fighting because it’s realistic. This 1932 movie got it better than almost every movie made today, although my brain failed to realize it, at least at first.

This got me thinking as well. I know for a fact I can’t fight, but in my imagination, when I confront that bully, I can suddenly fight like the badass women and men in the movies. I’m a lightning fisted, deliverer of thunderous blows. My brain actually thinks I can fight like that because the movies make it seem like everyone can do so.

I don’t think I’m alone in this fantasy and I wonder if all the brawling at sporting events, political rallies, bars, and everywhere else is to some degree a product of the bad fighting in movies, by that I mean the too good fighting in movies.

Conclusion

Maybe we’d all be better off if entertainment showed us how silly fighting looks when attempted by amateurs.

Asides

The Most Dangerous game starred Fay Wray, yes please, who filmed it during evening hours at the same time as King Kong and on the same location. That’s a long day.

I also found the final scene as Bob and Eve, Joel McCrea and Wray, are escaping via boat form the island interesting. Wray unties the boat from the post as Bob prepares to flee the island. She isn’t told to do so but simply does it without comment. She is largely portrayed as a capable woman throughout the movie despite being the damsel in distress. Something I’ve noticed in a number of pre-code movies. Was it the Code, designed supposedly to protect women, that turned them into helpless fools?

Tom Liberman

Woke Sexual Assault on The Nevers

Posted on by
Woke Sexual Assault

What Happened

Our drunken protagonist, Amalia, walks up onto the stage, grabs the lute player’s instrument and kisses him violently while grabbing his genitalia with her free hand and violently stroking him. Yep, that’s sexual assault.

She then breaks the presumably expensive musical instrument over the head of another patron who had the temerity to ask for kiss. That’s theft and destruction of property. Earlier, Amalia proffered a kiss in exchange for a pint of beer, several of which we witnessed her guzzling down with gusto. You see, she made an offer and the man, perfectly reasonably, asked if it was still available. Of course, he wasn’t as physically attractive as the lute player so he deserved to get smashed with an instrument and violently punched for this transgression.

Amalia performed her woke sexual assault on the lute player because she assumed it was welcome as he made eye contact with her from the stage and smiled. Clearly a signal he wanted a woke sexual assault.

The fact an executive producer for The Nevers, Joss Whedon, is under considerably scrutiny for equally vile behavior seems all part and parcel for a world in which understanding and tolerance are preached by all sides but only shown to those who are in lockstep agreement.

This is not Anti-Woke Incel Propaganda

I’m sorry to break the bad news to you Incel maniacs. Just because it’s horribly wrong for Amalia to grope and assault the lute player doesn’t absolve you. If it’s wrong for Amalia, it’s wrong for you.

I consider myself woke in that I know transgenders, people of color, women, religious minorities, and various other groups face tremendous discrimination and violence in this world and this country. Deny it all you want, it happens, it is happening, and you are responsible for this environment.

The woke agenda is absolutely right. It’s the woke playbook imitating those it condemns which bothers me.

A Personal Interlude

There is something in human nature that seems to turn horrors inflicted on themselves into doing the same to others. I played sports. In sports there is hazing. I witnessed bizarre pseudo-sexual violence committed by older athletes on younger athletes more than once.

The absolute glee on the faces of those committing the assaults stays with me to this day. It is almost certain the offender was the victim just a few short years earlier.

Conclusion

Respect for others means respect for those with whom you disagree and dislike. It doesn’t mean respect for your circle of friends who sit around blaming everyone else for the world’s problems while slapping themselves on the backs and advocating for atrocities. You sicken me as much as does Amalia with her woke sexual assault.

All this being said, There is a great deal of hope for humanity. I think we are making progress. I think we will get to a good place, someday.

It doesn’t help when those advocating for change are happy to glorify violence and assault on those they despise. Yes, I’m talking to you, all of you.

Tom Liberman

The Nevers Baggage Free Review

Posted on by
The Nevers

An Objective Review of The Nevers

The Nevers is a new show on HBO and I’m right at the center of the demographic audience for whom it is intended. That’s a fancy way of saying I’m a nerd with money to spend.

Not long ago I wrote a review of All Creatures Great and Small and Miss Scarlett and in it I discussed the ideas of reviewing a show for its objective good or bad traits rather than any baggage associated with the show or those who are involved in it.

If ever a show needed an objective review, it’s The Nevers although I’m not going to go into reasons why it is necessary, trust me on the subject. Most review are going to be at least partially if not mostly influenced by said baggage. None of that here.

What is The Nevers?

The Nevers is a much-hyped show on HBO which follows the exploits of a group of late nineteenth century Londoners dealing with the results of an unexplained phenomenon that left a number of people touched, that is to say, with special abilities and traits.

It’s a nerdalicious show with all the elements that have intrigued me since the early days of such shows which arguably began with the underrated Misfits of Science. To say that I’m a fan is to damn with faint praise indeed. I eat this stuff by the gallon and beg for more.

The Review

Acting

The ensemble case, and I do mean ensemble, for the premier episode did an excellent job for the most part. It doesn’t hurt that lead actor Laura Donnelly is an athletic, dark-haired vixen with more than a touch of crazy in her eyes. I have a weakness for that type. Still, trying to ignore my rapidly beating heart, I thought she was believable in the lead role as Amalia True.

Ann Skelly as Penance Adair was also excellent as a sidekick. She brought a sweetness to the role that seemed to shine through. The secondary characters all performed well. Amy Manson seemed over-the-top as the murderous Maladie and I thought hers was the weakest performance although she had little to do so I’ll withhold judgment.

I have only one quibble with the acting and it’s probably more with the sound team and the writing than the actors. I struggled throughout to understand the dialog. Their accents along with a lot of mumbling made it really difficult to follow.

Characters

The characters were all quite interesting and the opening vignette where we met them was relatively nicely managed. It’s not easy to get in so many backstories so quickly and I felt somewhat shortchanged, particularly in regards to Amalia who attempts to commit suicide but why?

In addition, Amalia’s Touched power is precognition but she somehow has ninja skills and is a martial arts master. I’ll talk more about this in the writing section.

Likewise, the Beggar King was introduced almost as an afterthought and attempting to make him menacing with so little to do didn’t work well for me. Lord Massen was handled particularly well as the big baddy. They did a nice job of explaining, at least partially, his hatred of the Touched in that his daughter collapses after the inciting incident.

Mary Brighton’s introduction seemed very forced as well and I just didn’t care about her at all even in the climactic opera scene. I think the big problem was too many characters too quickly. There’s just not enough time to get to know or care about them.

All in all, I think the characters are interesting and promising.

Writing

In a nutshell, this is where things went wrong. The writing falls into the typical trap of action shows where entire scenes appear out of nowhere, make no logical sense to the plot, and take me out of the moment. By this I mean I leave my immersion and shake my head in astonishment at the stupidity.

Particularly egregious from my perspective is Amalia with martial skills. Why does she have them? It makes no sense. They really needed a third lead along with Penance who has such Touched abilities but I guess the cast was already far too large.

In addition, Amalia’s precognition is a real problem in that she sees the future, changes her behavior, and alters the timeline removing what she just witnessed. I kind of have this problem with precognition in whole. I’d like to see her Touched ability give her insight into what to do after the event happens, not prevent it entirely.

From a scene related perspective, when Amalia and Penance went to investigate a touched girl, Myrtle things made little sense. Suddenly, while downstairs with her parents, kidnappers arrive upstairs and an enormous chase scene ensues. The investigation was just an excuse to have the chase.

Now, I will give the writers credit, they tried to explain the coincidence of the kidnapping at that exact moment as a result of the Beggar King giving the same information to the group led by Maladie. Still, I’m not buying it.

The pivotal opera scene made no sense whatsoever, from beginning to end. Why were they there? Maladie was there apparently to capture a Touched girl but goes on a nonsensical rant on stage as a way to introduce her compatriots, I guess. I couldn’t follow her dialog at all. Why did Mary start to sing?

It was an enormous hodgepodge of a chocolate mess. Why didn’t security rush the stage immediately? How did Hugo Swann only notice the murderous rampage on set when Maladie rushed by with Mary? I mean, he was standing right there for the entire thing.

The weepy dialog between Amalia and Penance after the failed pursuit didn’t make any sense at all. The entire scene, arguably the most pivotal in the first episode was baffling.

The writing really killed my enjoyment of what otherwise seems like a promising show. Too bad.

Sets and Costumes

The sets are stunning and believable and the costume design work is absolutely first rate. No quibbles here.

Music

Music is generally a problem in shows of this nature as it grows overbearing and preachy. When should I be afraid? When should I sense romance? Just listen to the volume cranking up. I’m thrilled to say the music was used with a relatively deft touch. The action scenes weren’t drowned by the music.

I am happy with the relatively deft touch displayed by the sound team here although they must do something about making the dialog understandable.

Conclusion

I didn’t enjoy the show almost exclusively because of poor writing. Many scenes seemed to be setups for action sequences rather than a plot moving device. Everything else was worth watching and I’ll keep tuning in for the moment, but we’ll see.

Tom Liberman

Why the Simp Shamer is Worse than the Simp

Posted on by
Simp Shamer

What is a Simp Shamer and a Simp?

A Simp is someone who donates money or other gratuities to an entertainer on streaming services like Twitch. The general term of Simp indicates a male who donates to the stream of an attractive female who then says their username in an affectionate way.

The term has significant negative connotations; so much so that Twitch has banned its use in chat. People who laugh at and otherwise denigrate so-called Simps are to be found on virtually every stream but I find a Simp Shamer to be far viler than those who donate the money.

A Simp Shamer is someone who denigrates the Simps at every opportunity, apparently in order to show the world how much better a person are they.

Why is a Simp Shamer such a Douche?

The problem for me is the so-called Simp is donating money of their own free will. It is certain the often-attractive female streamer is using her sex appeal to illicit such donations but a lot of people donate to streams on Twitch.

People donate to chess streams, game streams, music stream, ASMR streams, and plenty of others. Yet the derogatory term seems to only apply to men donating to the streams of attractive women. Listen, I spend money on role-playing games, my gym membership, chess site memberships, and plenty of other things that others certainly would not spend their money upon. Good for them, spend your money on the things you enjoy.

The Simp Shamer goes onto streams essentially to pat themselves on the back for being better than the Simp. The reality is they are worse, far worse in my opinion. Why do you care how other people spend their money? Why do you think your stupid hobbies are somehow better than mine? What weakness in your own character makes you have to shame others to make yourself feel better?

You’re a douche, Simp Shamer. Let me say that I’ve never donated to the stream of an ASMR artist but who cares? Maybe someday I will. They work hard, I enjoy their efforts. It’s like any other voluntary expenditure and completely my decision to make.

Conclusion

What is it with our willingness to negatively judge other people in this world for the things they enjoy? Why do so many of you derive your sense of personal worth from shaming others?

Shut your yap, Simp Shamer. Mind your business. There’s nothing wrong with the Simp, there is something fundamentally wrong with you.

Tom Liberman

Meghan Markle and Donald Trump Two Peas in a Pod

Posted on by
Meghan Markle and Donald Trump

Narcissistic Personalities

In an attempt to anger the entirety of the human race I thought I’d write about how Meghan Markle and Donald Trump are pretty much the same person. It appears to me they clearly share a few traits; namely a long-term pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive craving for admiration, and struggles with empathy.

It’s called a narcissistic personality and the way both of them endlessly center their woes on the perceived behavior of others and refuse to accept any personal responsibility for the situations they find themselves in does not sit well with me.

Why You Support One and Not the Other

More to the point of this blog are the people who choose to support Meghan Markle and Donald Trump. They tend to be on the opposite end of the political spectrum. This paradox may surprise you but it does not come as any shock to me.

You see, politics don’t matter when it comes to people of this nature. They exist in a simple transactional environment where the only thing you are to them is a means to an end. Nothing political, ideological, moral, or ethical binds them from their goal of using you to get what they want. And, of course, you oblige.

We all have experience with this sort of person. You run into them after a long absence at some place you frequent. They tell you how great you look, laugh at your wonderful jokes; then they get to the point. What can you do for them? The meeting was no accident.

Meghan Markle used Piers Morgan to get into a party where she targeted Prince Harry, then she had no more need of Morgan so she dumped him. Donald Trump flailed around various political ideologies until he found a Republican base willing to listen to his completely disingenuous ramblings on immigration. When he no longer needs them, he dumps them. Meghan Markle and Donald Trump are largely one and the same.

Enlightened Self-Interest

I thought this might be a useful time to speak briefly on the concept of Enlightened Self-Interest because you might mistake the narcissism of Meghan Markle and Donald Trump for it. Nope. They tend to destroy all they touch in their mindless grasping for the glittery trinket in front of their face.

Someone who act to further the interests of others, or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong, ultimately serve their own self-interest. That’s enlightened self-interest.

Narcissists are Sometimes Right

It’s also important to understand that Meghan Markle and Donald Trump sometimes have good points. They aren’t wrong all the time and just because they are selfish, transactional people doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to their legitimate grievances.

I live in the real world and I’m quite certain Meghan Markle was subject to racist abuse and that Donald Trump was occasionally harassed not for his policies but simply because of his name. When bad things happen to bad people, we should call it out. That doesn’t make the narcissist less self-centered, it just makes us a better person.

Conclusion

When it comes to Meghan Markle and Donald Trump it is likely you hate one and support the other. If you dislike them both you are in the minority but, if it’s any comfort, you have my support.

Tom Liberman